Matt,The intriguing part of my musing is whether the change in the colour of the exposing light between exposures, and the differing responses of the emulsion components to that change, do make the order difference important.
So, preflashing a sheet of paper will affect the outcome, but exposing first with warm light makes no difference?
I was under the impression that pre-flashing gets the emulsion to the point where it approaches reacting to light, so any additional exposure starts forming an image immediately. It would seem that that would not work the same post-exposure. But what the hell do I know anyway.
That's what I thought too. So the argument goes from those who say it definitely makes no difference, that if you have an exposed film that you should have pre-exposed but didn't, you could give it some post-exposure before development. Could be handy occasionally.
Yes, that was to keep the shadows from getting too dark in theatres. It doesn't really improve shadow detail, just keeps them from getting too dark, especially when doing day for night shots.Come to think of it, I remember DPs specifying “post flash” for motion picture film. So it is a valid technique to essentially bring up details in the shadows with negative film before processing.
Yes, that was to keep the shadows from getting too dark in theatres. It doesn't really improve shadow detail, just keeps them from getting too dark, especially when doing day for night shots.
Oh? I thought there were special low-contrast color print films for TV.More than theaters. I was working on TV commercials.
Oh? I thought there were special low-contrast color print films for TV.
What many here are missing about flashing, pre or post, is that it is an overall exposure, not filtered through the densities of the negative and, therefore, not proportional thereto.
So, to modify my initial response to Matt (which wasn't carefully enough thought through): an overall flashing will aid in adding density to highlight areas that would otherwise be underexposed due to negative density simply because it fogs the entire negative. This adds density everywhere, but, since the exposure is so low, makes little to no difference in the shadows and very little difference in the mid-tones; only the higher values are affected visibly.
Now, whether making this fogging exposure with low- of high-contrast light will make a difference in the subsequent contrast rendering of a print (ostensibly made at a different average contrast setting) really does remain to be seen. Whatever effects it might have, would be most noticeable in the highlight areas of the print. Anyone?
Best,
Doremus
What am I missing?
Exactly....
Regarding flashing, exposure is cumulative, so it does increase “effective” speed, however at the expense of contrast in those lowest densities. That’s the tradeoff. It’s the same as flare.
Exactly.
So, is yellow flare different than magenta flare? That's the question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?